State investigates alleged campaign violation by Warren Mayor Jim Fouts
WARREN, Mich. (CBS DETROIT) - The Michigan Department of State says it is investigating a complaint alleging Warren Mayor Jim Fouts violated the Michigan Campaign Finance Act.
The complaint, which was filed by attorney Jeffrey Schroder on behalf of the city council, alleges Fouts used the last 12 minutes of his State of the City address on June 22 to announce political endorsements of candidates for the upcoming municipal election. The address is covered by "TV Warren," which is a government TV channel funded by Warren's communications department.
The Department of State notified Fouts of the investigation in a letter, dated July 5, explaining it did not make the complaint or will be accepting the allegations as true. The department says it will proceed after Fouts submits a response.
Under Michigan law, it is unlawful for a public body to use or authorize "the use of equipment, supplies, personnel, funds, or other public resources to make a contribution or expenditure."
The complaint says the endorsement segment replayed multiple times on TV and it has been running on social media, alleging "this could be worth tens of thousands of dollars of free campaign advertising and endorsements, unlawfully at public expense." According to the channel program schedule included with the complaint, the State of the City address aired every day between June 26 and July 2.
The complaint also mentioned a 2018 conciliation agreement made between the city and the state, stemming from allegations that Fouts authorized expenditures in the amount of $761.90 to advertise a fundraiser sponsored by a political action committee during the 2016 State of the City address.
In that case, the Department of the State determined there may be reason to believe Fouts violated the campaign finance law, and Fouts reimbursed the City of Warren.
"After 16 years as mayor and a prior violation for using the same 'State of the City' address to make illegal campaign expenditures, there is no excuse for this violation," read the complaint. "And unlike the 2016 violation, the mayor and his subordinances are violating the law every day by continually running this illegal advertisement in the city's government channel and maintaining it on the city website and social media accounts."
In a statement, Fouts says the address, which has occurred for decades, was a private event sponsored by a private entity.
"During this event, I voiced comments regarding the State of the City of Warren, and also, voiced my opinion on candidates running for City offices," Fouts said. "It is materially no different than if I were to meet with a homeowner, group, or encounter residents at some other location in or outside the City. As this was a planned event and has occurred in the past, numerous media outlets followed my remarks and produced news stories concerning it."
Fouts says after receiving the complaint, he requested to have that portion of the speech removed.
You can read Fouts' full statement below:
"Let me start by saying that this incident involves, another in a long line of politically motivated efforts, wasting taxpayer dollars, in order to disparage myself with a claimed 'gotcha moment.'
"As you know, this incident involves my State of the City Address which occurred at a private location in the City with sponsorship by a private entity, the Warren Chamber of Commerce. During this event, I voiced comments regarding the State of the City of Warren, and also, voiced my opinion on candidates running for City offices. It is materially no different than if I were to meet with a homeowner, group, or encounter residents at some other location in or outside the City. As this was a planned event and has occurred in the past, numerous media outlets followed my remarks and produced news stories concerning it. The event has occurred over decades in the past and as before, was covered by the Communications Department of the City of Warren and broadcast and published by the Department at no additional expense to the taxpayers. In contrast, I question how much Council's Oakland County Attorney Jeff Schroder cost the taxpayers to file another in a series of frivolous complaints.
"As has occurred in the past, after the event occurred, various media outlets produced stories relating to the content of my remarks. My remarks were also replayed as part of the entire State of the City Address upon City governmental channels. In my opinion, it is beyond any doubt that the viewership of media reporting by private entities far exceeded any viewership on the governmental channel, or downloads of the event from the City website.
"Upon receiving notice of the complaint by Mr. Schroder on behalf of the Council through delivery of it to me, I instructed that the challenged comments be removed. If I had been approached before the complaint was filed by authorized representatives of the Council, I would have done so as well, hoping to avoid another costly legal entanglement. Instead, this was done by Council obviously with the intent of creating a media firestorm.
"Turning to the complaint itself, it is without merit, and does not establish any violation of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. The complaint presents an incomplete discussion of the issues in this matter. The statue involved is MCL 169.257. Mr. Schroder cites only MCL 169.257(1). Yet right at the end of the statute, the last sentence says, "this subsection does not apply to any of the following." Instead of apparently reading these subsections and presenting some indication as to why they do not apply, he in a very neglectful way has failed to read these, or otherwise simply disregards them without discussion.
"Under MCL 169.257(a), and otherwise as protected under the constitution of the United States and the State of Michigan, I am entitled to express my views as any other citizen with regard to persons running for office. Explicitly, MCL 169.257 recognizes that subsection (1), relied on by Mr. Schroder, does not apply to "(a) the expression of views by an elected or appointed official who has policy making responsibilities." I am currently an elected official, the Mayor of the City of Warren, and I do implement policies that relate to my functions as the Mayor of the City.
"Mr. Schroder has also failed to cite or discuss MCL 169.257(c) which again is an exception to the application of MCL 169.257(1), and which states, "(c) the production or dissemination of debates, interviews, commentary, or information by a broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical or publication in the regular course of broadcasting or publication."
"Apparently, Mr. Schroder is repeating to whomever will listen that the claimed violations by me are intentional, citing to a previous conciliation agreement. First, the subject matter of the conciliation agreement involved the distribution of an insert with the residents' water bill advising recipients of where and how tickets to my State of the City Address could be obtained. It did not involve the dissemination of my comments during the State of the City Address. Secondly, the conciliation agreement, now expired, was with the City of Warren itself, and was signed by Mr. Richard D. Sabaugh, the former employee who had been responsible for the challenged water bill insert in that matter. As can be seen, no previous conciliation agreement was executed that involved me personally, nor was one executed involving substantially the same factual setting as the present complaint.
"The media department personnel at the State of the City Address were there to record the event. If they had not been there, the same expenditures for their wages and benefits would have occurred. The media present at the State of the City Address did not create a new expense to the City.
"It is my firm belief that the majority of the good citizens of Warren are fed up and tired of the City coffers being emptied with payments to Mr. Schroder and his law firm over matters that could have been resolved without wasting taxpayer money."